Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Once you have 4 kids in after school activities, it really doesn’t matter that one parent is home. There are still only 2 adults to manage driving/dinner/homework/bedtime.

Signed,
A SAHM of two with not much evening bandwidth to spare.

Both my parents come from big families, I have close friends and ex boyfriends with 6+ kids in family. I am an only child and DH has 1 unmarried brother.

I would love a big family. Truly, I think though these days are different than 5-10 yrs ago. It really is. There was a time when your kids go play outside with other kids v now just online. There was a time when you had buses for school and post activities. It's not always the case. Public school now isn't always great. You have to take into account logistics.

I don't care how much you enjoy having 4 kids, unless you had daily help, you're challenged in some way with that many kids you have responsibility for. I for one understand why someone wants a big family but I think it is selfish on a purely objective level.

I have 2 and it's exhausting. I often think having one is a lot and enough. But being an only child I wish I did have more siblings.

It's just so hard now with finances on top of logistics as a serious consideration. I think anyone who suggests otherwise is lying. Whether you love having 3+ or find it hard, it's a lot. I think you also have to figure into what pregnancy does to the body.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who grew up in a family of four-- I think people who say that adding additional kids after 3 is "easy" do not think of their kids as individuals (or at least not all of them), probably rely on a good bit of childcare from their eldest, and better pray none of their kids has special needs in any way. Not just something like ADHD, ASD, or a learning disorder, but even subclinical issues like being slow to warm, mild sensory processing issues, etc.

Look, love is not a finite resource and kids need a lot less space and material goods than modern American consumerist culture currently dictates. But time and energy ARE finite, and the idea that adding a while other person to your family, a child who will be at peak "need," is no big deal is deranged.

I don't trust people who treat that cavalierly.

This may be the most sane post I've ever read on this website. I am one of six, and I firmly believe that no one needs more children than two. I don't care how much you want a big family. There is no way to take care of a child's emotional well being when there is so much need. It's batshit crazy to me that in this time of climate crisis (and when most children make it to adulthood) anyone should be having large families. Just don't do it.

It sounds like you need some therapy for your childhood. I came from a large family (7) as did my DH (6) and we have 4 kids. We are low producers out of our siblings. There is a lot of love and time and the 50+ cousins are all doing well with college, just starting careers, etc. There are definitely some special needs which will be continually worked on/with for life. But when you have an amazing childhood in a large family that is exactly what you want to give your own kids.

I'm not talking about material well-being as an indicator of happiness. There is no way that all of those 50+ cousins or your combined 11 siblings are doing well, as defined by their emotional health. And having special needs is definitely not something you can discount from the equation. Have you asked those relatives how happy and wonderful they feel their lives are? Do you know how hard it is to be a sibling of a kid with a disability? And what about all of your siblings? Are you close with each or close enough that they tell you about their inner lives? Or perhaps, like most kids in large families, they learn to keep their mouths shut so as not to rock the boat and just keep doing whatever the hell needs to be done to get by (obviously, some of that is subconscious). Do you know that being raised in a family of 5+ children is considered an Adverse Childhood Experience? Besides, the world doesn't need us to keep making so many humans!

Here is your list. The list of adverse childhood experiences known to foster toxic stress (ACEs) are:

physical abuse
sexual abuse
emotional abuse
physical neglect
emotional neglect
mental illness
violence toward a primary caregiver
substance use
divorce

These can happen in families of any size. You really do need therapy to deal with your childhood.

Anonymous wrote:We have four kids, one with a food allergy, one with a visible disability, and three have ADHD and anxiety.

We have resources - education and money - which makes parenting and working possible. I have a flexible job, and cover all the doctors appointments and therapy. I do homework with my kids and take them to activities. They get home cooked meals. They don’t babysit each other - too close in age at 2 years apart between each.

I don’t do individual bedtime routines for my kids, I turn down some invitations for play dates or birthday for family time. There are definitely trade offs, but it’s not about not being able to give my kids time and attention.

DH and I are both one of four kids, and we love having a big family. The hardest part of having kids is that when they go through something hard, it weighs on me. That is not about the number of kids.

I see this a lot in the families I personally know who have four kids - they were raised with that dynamic.

I was raised with one sibling and definitely wanted a larger family. We stopped at 3.

I think it’s interesting that in my friend group, being raised in a family with four kids was wonderful enough for them that they want to replicate it. I think a lot of it is temperament; they are all chill, fairly relaxed people who love kids.

I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Anonymous wrote:I haven't found four to be that different from three. Granted, our kids have no major special needs.

When I think of whether to have a fifth, it's not the adding of another person that is the most daunting, but rather the prolonging of having a baby or toddler in the family. We will probably stop at four because we want to be completely past the baby and toddler stages. If I could give birth to a five year old, then I think I'd definitely have one or two more.

+1 to all of this

Anonymous wrote:As someone who grew up in a family of four-- I think people who say that adding additional kids after 3 is "easy" do not think of their kids as individuals (or at least not all of them), probably rely on a good bit of childcare from their eldest, and better pray none of their kids has special needs in any way. Not just something like ADHD, ASD, or a learning disorder, but even subclinical issues like being slow to warm, mild sensory processing issues, etc.

Look, love is not a finite resource and kids need a lot less space and material goods than modern American consumerist culture currently dictates. But time and energy ARE finite, and the idea that adding a while other person to your family, a child who will be at peak "need," is no big deal is deranged.

I don't trust people who treat that cavalierly.

This I'm the oldest of four and let me tell you that a lot of the parenting is outsourced to me..... My parents always bragged about how easy having four was well, no s*** you had a free nanny living there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because 4 is far, far rarer than three in today's society, too.

This is a large part of it, but I think not the whole story.

There's a big shift when moving from two to three children -- going from man to man to zone defense is the standard metaphor. It's also the point at which family happiness seems to be at its nadir in surveys. But this is partially because many people who handle that well go on to have four or more children, whereas people who have a lot of problems with that style wisely stick at three.

^^ I should have added that I'm the mom of four and it is great. The main issue is logistics. We have family close by that help; were it not for that, the children would definitely be in fewer activities. But OTOH, there are more activities one can do at home when you start having larger numbers of built in playmates.

Anonymous wrote:Mom of 4 here.
I think it depends on your parenting style - more kids with more intensive parenting styles mean you either need to hire help or drop standards.
So, I have never sat with a child while they fell asleep, meal times and snack times were set times of day and they ate what was served or didn't eat (until they could get their own food), kids do chores to help out, teens walk/take the bus to some of their activities, etc.

This is kinda sad. Neglect is not a parenting style.

Anonymous wrote:Because 4 is far, far rarer than three in today's society, too.

This is a large part of it, but I think not the whole story.

There's a big shift when moving from two to three children -- going from man to man to zone defense is the standard metaphor. It's also the point at which family happiness seems to be at its nadir in surveys. But this is partially because many people who handle that well go on to have four or more children, whereas people who have a lot of problems with that style wisely stick at three.

As a parent of a 12 and 15 year old (and obviously done) I literally do not understand logistically how evenings would go with any more kids, especially during the school year. And my DH helps. I guess you either make them do a less involved activity, and/or hire drivers and homework tutors? I also don't want my kids taking on college debt nor do we want to work until we are 65 so based on that and the way we want to parent our children, we stopped and we are very glad we did.

Anonymous wrote:As someone who grew up in a family of four-- I think people who say that adding additional kids after 3 is "easy" do not think of their kids as individuals (or at least not all of them), probably rely on a good bit of childcare from their eldest, and better pray none of their kids has special needs in any way. Not just something like ADHD, ASD, or a learning disorder, but even subclinical issues like being slow to warm, mild sensory processing issues, etc.

Look, love is not a finite resource and kids need a lot less space and material goods than modern American consumerist culture currently dictates. But time and energy ARE finite, and the idea that adding a while other person to your family, a child who will be at peak "need," is no big deal is deranged.

I don't trust people who treat that cavalierly.

This describes my sister exactly. She freely admits that she doesn't play with any of them and that the younger two are much easier when the older are home because she doesn't have to entertain them. She also doesn't work and puts them all in preschool/school the max she can the second they are eligible. She seems to just want the image of being a "4 kid mom." Like driving a Suburban and sitting in private school carline is her identity. That, and the perfect Christmas card. Its hard to explain.

We have four kids, one with a food allergy, one with a visible disability, and three have ADHD and anxiety.

We have resources - education and money - which makes parenting and working possible. I have a flexible job, and cover all the doctors appointments and therapy. I do homework with my kids and take them to activities. They get home cooked meals. They don’t babysit each other - too close in age at 2 years apart between each.

I don’t do individual bedtime routines for my kids, I turn down some invitations for play dates or birthday for family time. There are definitely trade offs, but it’s not about not being able to give my kids time and attention.

DH and I are both one of four kids, and we love having a big family. The hardest part of having kids is that when they go through something hard, it weighs on me. That is not about the number of kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who grew up in a family of four-- I think people who say that adding additional kids after 3 is "easy" do not think of their kids as individuals (or at least not all of them), probably rely on a good bit of childcare from their eldest, and better pray none of their kids has special needs in any way. Not just something like ADHD, ASD, or a learning disorder, but even subclinical issues like being slow to warm, mild sensory processing issues, etc.

Look, love is not a finite resource and kids need a lot less space and material goods than modern American consumerist culture currently dictates. But time and energy ARE finite, and the idea that adding a while other person to your family, a child who will be at peak "need," is no big deal is deranged.

I don't trust people who treat that cavalierly.

This may be the most sane post I've ever read on this website. I am one of six, and I firmly believe that no one needs more children than two. I don't care how much you want a big family. There is no way to take care of a child's emotional well being when there is so much need. It's batshit crazy to me that in this time of climate crisis (and when most children make it to adulthood) anyone should be having large families. Just don't do it.

I am one of two. My DH is one of seven. We both had wonderful childhoods. All of our siblings talk about what a wonderful childhood they had. It’s not family size that matters when it comes to how your childhood is. Perhaps you need therapy to deal with your issues.

Regarding your comment on the climate crisis, please move on. Google fertility rate and you will see all these articles about how dangerous a declining fertility rate it and how all these governments including ours are freaking out. The economist devoted an entire issue on the subject.

Yeah. It’s dangerous to the ECONOMY. That’s why The Economist did an issue on it. A declining fertility rate is not dangerous to climate change; quite the opposite. When the world is on fire the economy won’t matter, and your children will all be climate refugees. But so glad that little Brayden had an additional sibling!

So the snide little comment at the end... to me, it feels like you are jealous or something? Why "Brayden"? Is that supposed to suggest that only lower income people have 4+ kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who grew up in a family of four-- I think people who say that adding additional kids after 3 is "easy" do not think of their kids as individuals (or at least not all of them), probably rely on a good bit of childcare from their eldest, and better pray none of their kids has special needs in any way. Not just something like ADHD, ASD, or a learning disorder, but even subclinical issues like being slow to warm, mild sensory processing issues, etc.

Look, love is not a finite resource and kids need a lot less space and material goods than modern American consumerist culture currently dictates. But time and energy ARE finite, and the idea that adding a while other person to your family, a child who will be at peak "need," is no big deal is deranged.

I don't trust people who treat that cavalierly.

This may be the most sane post I've ever read on this website. I am one of six, and I firmly believe that no one needs more children than two. I don't care how much you want a big family. There is no way to take care of a child's emotional well being when there is so much need. It's batshit crazy to me that in this time of climate crisis (and when most children make it to adulthood) anyone should be having large families. Just don't do it.

Like others, I gently suggest you work through these feelings in therapy. Your beliefs about your own childhood are absolutely valid, but you can't extrapolate that to every family with 4+ kids. There's just too many variables (family support, money, where they live, family life, etc.). You've never, in your life, met a well-adjusted, happy adult who happens to have 3+ siblings?!